Posted on 10/03/2002 8:02:40 AM PDT by tip of the sword
At some point today Forrester's attorneys are expected to:
1. Ask a US District Court Judge in Trenton to order New Jersey to proceed with its election without interruption, aguing that a stoppage at this point would violate the due process rights of those filling out military and overseas absentee ballots under Federal Voting rights act provisions.
2.Ask Attorney General John Ashcroft to do the same thing, though, as ABC NEWS's Lumplin advises, the connection between what Forrester wants and what Ashcroft can deliver is not clear.
3.Appeal with the aid of the National Republican Senate Committee Alex Vogel directly to the US Supreme Court's David Souter, the duty justice, arguing that state legislatures and only state legislatures only have discretion to manage the time and place of elections.
4.At 11AM EST today in Trenton a state superior judge is expected to begin the process of supervising the reprinting ands redistrubition of ballots.
5.At 10 AM EST Republcians will hold a press conference at the Statehouse in Trenton, replete with military veterans who will testify to the necessity of recieving absentee ballots in a timely fashion.
6.At 11:00 AM Forrester's campaign plans to submit paperwork to the US District Court in Trenton.
7.Shortly thereafter, the NSRC expects to ask the Supreme Court for an expedited review of the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Any legalese experts about appealing directly to Souter on this 'duty justice' thing?
DOJ is the responsible party for making sure Federal Voting Laws are complied with.
Knowing what we do about empty-Souter, I'd expect him to do nothing to hurt Lautenberg. Souter being 'duty justice' is very bad news for lovers of the rule of law.
I'd argue that it's not "lawyering" they're better at, it's "Judge Shopping". We knew the fix was in when NJ Supreme Court was going to be the venue.
I disagree. Its clear as day that a State court can not change a deadline in a law written by the State legislature. There is no issue at all for a court to look at. This should never have even been allowed to be brought before a court.
Sac
Time is of the essence and the New Jersey State Government/Tony Sopranos relatives started re-printing new ballots 20 minutes ago!
It would be real funny if SCOTUS shoots the RATS! down and they have to clean up...
Justices, I must admit, I was rather confused as to why we are even here. But after hearing my esteemed colleagues argument, it is all very clear to me... The courts position regarding the application of the election statutes has been made very clear. I am quoting from .(Schundler v. County Clerks, Bob Franks et al).
" But in responding to the parties' claims, we must not lose sight of the objective our laws are intended to achieve. Left unsaid in all these technical assertions are certain propositions so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that they rarely find expression. Perhaps these values, which go to the very heart of our democratic system, need restating. First, the purpose of our election laws is to afford voters the maximum opportunity to make a choice. Second, our interpretation of these detailed statutes should allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process as is possible consistent with the statutory language employed. ...."
Realising that it began to dawn on me, exactly what the issue at hand really is. The statute controlling replacing a candidate is clear and unambiguous. It sets forth a 48 day deadline. The statutes providing the Governor the Ability to appoint a candidate in the event of a vacancy as described in 19:3-25 and 19:3-26 provide for replacement of a candidate, but not reconfiguration of the ballot. In the event of less than 30 days, and unless prohibited by the US Constitution, the election for that office is delayed one year, or sooner if a Special Election is to be called. But, we do not have a Vacancy here, as defined by the statute (19:3-25). That vacancy can only occur, if Senator Torricelli leaves his Senate seat. that has not happened.
What has happened? In effect, by withdrawing in the manner he did, Senator Torricelli, is conceding the race before election day, unless he wishes to resign and allow the Governor to invoke the Vacancy statute. But Righ now, at this moment is not controlling.
So we are left with the 48 day deadline. so what is my colleague seeking really?
They have 35 days to mount an effective write in campaign against Mr. Forrester, nothing prohibits that. What they are really asking for, is to have the voters choice restricted from Torricelli, who dropped out, but EARNED his Ballot spot, in the Primary and Forrester and Their new chice Mr. Lautenberg, down to ONLY Forrester and Lautenberg, in efect they are seeking to restrict the chice of the voter to their advantage. Further since there is no provision keeping them from writing Lautenberg in state wide, the real issue at hand is that they are asking the court to disregard the statuatory 48 day deadline and tgive them advatageous ballot positioning which the law clearly states they are not entitled to.
Aboard ships in the navy, someone aboard is always "In Charge," even down to the departmental level.
This is the one issue that will get Souter to allow it fast track, and it is the one most likely to be taken by the Supreme Court.
AND, it is the one that resonates with the voters and doesn't sound like whining!!
Sac
That's what people said in Floriduh too. Is Gore our president? Nope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.